This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-02-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners, on the other hand, consider that this Court is part of the State's check-and-balance machinery, specifically mandated by Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution to ensure that no branch of the government or any of its officials acts without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. They assert that judicial non-interference in military affairs is not deemed as absolute even in the U.S. They cite Schlesinger and Parker, which were invoked by respondents, as well as Burns v. Wilson[81] and Harmon v. Brucker,[82] wherein the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the proceedings of military tribunals on account of issues posed concerning due process and violations of constitutional rights. Also, in Magno v. De Villa[83] decided by this Court, petitioners note that We, in fact, exercised the judicial power to determine whether the AFP and the members of the court martial acted with grave abuse of discretion in their military investigation. | |||||
|
2006-08-10 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Subsequently, petitioners filed with this Court a Supplemental Petition raising the additional issue that the offense charged before the General Court Martial has prescribed. Petitioners alleged therein that during the pendency of their original petition, respondents proceeded with the Pre-Trial Investigation for purposes of charging them with violation of Article 96 (conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman) of the Articles of War; that the Pre-Trial Investigation Panel then referred the case to the General Court Martial; that "almost two years since the Oakwood incident on July 27, 2003, only petitioner Lt. (SG) Antonio Trillanes was arraigned, and this was done under questionable circumstances;"[10] that in the hearing of July 26, 2005, herein petitioners moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that they were not arraigned within the prescribed period of two (2) years from the date of the commission of the alleged offense, in violation of Article 38 of the Articles of War;[11] that "the offense charged prescribed on July 25, 2005;"[12] that the General Court Martial ruled, however, that "the prescriptive period shall end only at 12:00 midnight of July 26, 2005;"[13] that "(a)s midnight of July 26, 2005 was approaching and it was becoming apparent that the accused could not be arraigned, the prosecution suddenly changed its position and asserted that 23 of the accused have already been arraigned;"[14] and that petitioners moved for a reconsideration but it was denied by the general court martial in its Order dated September 14, 2005.[15] | |||||